3 ms·

The tax code should be simplified, and tax rates should be flattened as well. A vast improvement over the status quo would be that everyone pays the same low p

The tax code should be simplified, and tax rates should be flattened as well. A vast improvement over the status quo would be that everyone pays the same low percentage, no matter the amount they make. If you make your money honestly (and the vast majority of us do), it isn't morally right that you get soaked from the very moment you begin to succeed.

Frondo 11y ago
Of course it's morally right--the people who are doing best in society have the highest obligation to society, just like the strongest and most capable in a family should be the one bringing in the bread. We even instinctively recoil when we see the deadbeat who won't work, forcing their children/siblings/whatever to support them. We even used to have a common phrase for it, noblesse oblige, though that's fallen out of favor in the last generation.
- afsina 11y ago
  Society is not your family. Your responsibilities are very different in both. But the main issue is who decides what your social obligations are? Helping people is a moral issue and right for "me", but may not be a moral issue for somebody else. So, I disagree, this is not an obligation. I know that this is the debate of the likes of Rawls versus Rothbard. Just could not help replying.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Well, ultimately, we all decide what our social obligations are, because we live in a democratic society. We discuss, we persuade, we elect, we vote, and so on. The conversation never really ends, and each new generation chooses again for itself where to draw the line. But things, historically, have gone pretty good for everyone, the more the rich chip in, and pretty badly for almost everyone(though better for the rich, of course), the less they do. Now, I get that a lot of people decide "these are the principles I think are important, and damn the consequences," but I think that's silly--if a principle I like ends up leading to a crummy society in one way or another (e.g. I don't think pollution should be regulated, full stop, and suddenly everyone has shitty air quality), then I'm going to rethink that principle. Others stick to their guns no matter what.
- paulddraper 11y ago
  But proportionally more, or disproportionately more?
- maxharris 11y ago
  I do not want to be anyone's keeper, nor do I want to be kept. All I'm asserting is the moral right to make the most of my life without taking advantage of others, or having them take advantage of me. Each of us has the right to exist for our own sake.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    You live in society and are a part of it whether you think it's right or not. That's unavoidable, just like breathing air or drinking water is unavoidable. I'm not really sure what you think you'd gain by somehow being independent from everyone around you. How do you think your life would be better?
    - maxharris 11y ago
      "Independence" does not mean living like a hermit, alone in a shack in the mountains. I am all for friendships and collaborations with others, and I recognize the economic benefits of the division of labor. Obviously these relationships do not depend on the government taking from some and giving to others. It is well-known that people had friends, co-workers, families, and specialized occupations in the 19th century, prior to the advent of social programs, the income tax, and public schools. What is the role of government in human relationships? It may surprise you that I think it has an essential role, via the justice system. In a properly functioning state, everyone can count on the government to retaliate against predators. After all, it is only when two strangers know that an objective arbiter will handle disputes between them that Hobbesian nightmares are prevented. When the government goes beyond the role I just outlined, relationships between some people suffer. When the government unjustly takes from some and gives to others, people have no recourse but to see each other as resources or burdens, as threats to be avoided or saps to be taken advantage of. I can think of nothing more corrosive to goodwill and friendship than this, and we see it all around us in the world today.
      - Frondo 11y ago
        Thanks for giving me a reply that you've obviously put some thought into. I think your view that government's proper role is to retaliate against predators is probably one shared by very few. Being more of a pragmatist myself, I'd rather narrow in on views and ideological positions that could get more widespread buy-in. I think you had a good representative line in there, that you think the government's role is to retaliate against predators. I submit that that is a view shared by very few people, and likely no one

Frondo 11y ago

Of course it's morally right--the people who are doing best in society have the highest obligation to society, just like the strongest and most capable in a family should be the one bringing in the bread. We even instinctively recoil when we see the deadbeat who won't work, forcing their children/siblings/whatever to support them. We even used to have a common phrase for it, noblesse oblige, though that's fallen out of favor in the last generation.

afsina 11y ago
Society is not your family. Your responsibilities are very different in both. But the main issue is who decides what your social obligations are? Helping people is a moral issue and right for "me", but may not be a moral issue for somebody else. So, I disagree, this is not an obligation. I know that this is the debate of the likes of Rawls versus Rothbard. Just could not help replying.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Well, ultimately, we all decide what our social obligations are, because we live in a democratic society. We discuss, we persuade, we elect, we vote, and so on. The conversation never really ends, and each new generation chooses again for itself where to draw the line. But things, historically, have gone pretty good for everyone, the more the rich chip in, and pretty badly for almost everyone(though better for the rich, of course), the less they do. Now, I get that a lot of people decide "these are the principles I think are important, and damn the consequences," but I think that's silly--if a principle I like ends up leading to a crummy society in one way or another (e.g. I don't think pollution should be regulated, full stop, and suddenly everyone has shitty air quality), then I'm going to rethink that principle. Others stick to their guns no matter what.
paulddraper 11y ago
But proportionally more, or disproportionately more?
maxharris 11y ago
I do not want to be anyone's keeper, nor do I want to be kept. All I'm asserting is the moral right to make the most of my life without taking advantage of others, or having them take advantage of me. Each of us has the right to exist for our own sake.
- Frondo 11y ago
  You live in society and are a part of it whether you think it's right or not. That's unavoidable, just like breathing air or drinking water is unavoidable. I'm not really sure what you think you'd gain by somehow being independent from everyone around you. How do you think your life would be better?
  - maxharris 11y ago
    "Independence" does not mean living like a hermit, alone in a shack in the mountains. I am all for friendships and collaborations with others, and I recognize the economic benefits of the division of labor. Obviously these relationships do not depend on the government taking from some and giving to others. It is well-known that people had friends, co-workers, families, and specialized occupations in the 19th century, prior to the advent of social programs, the income tax, and public schools. What is the role of government in human relationships? It may surprise you that I think it has an essential role, via the justice system. In a properly functioning state, everyone can count on the government to retaliate against predators. After all, it is only when two strangers know that an objective arbiter will handle disputes between them that Hobbesian nightmares are prevented. When the government goes beyond the role I just outlined, relationships between some people suffer. When the government unjustly takes from some and gives to others, people have no recourse but to see each other as resources or burdens, as threats to be avoided or saps to be taken advantage of. I can think of nothing more corrosive to goodwill and friendship than this, and we see it all around us in the world today.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Thanks for giving me a reply that you've obviously put some thought into. I think your view that government's proper role is to retaliate against predators is probably one shared by very few. Being more of a pragmatist myself, I'd rather narrow in on views and ideological positions that could get more widespread buy-in. I think you had a good representative line in there, that you think the government's role is to retaliate against predators. I submit that that is a view shared by very few people, and likely no one